Responsible Parenting and the Use of Force by AnthonyT

Thank you for starting this thread, Anthony.

Parenting without force, for me, represents the ideal. No time outs, no fines, no force whatsoever. I absolutely believe it is possible and desirable.

Kids need a LOT of attention. They need a lot more attention than most parents realize. They need a lot more attention than most parents can afford.

Parenting is more about slowly shaping their kids' behavior and values than about controlling them. It means they have to take the time to sit at the pottery wheel, instead of pouring clay into a premade mold and going off to do something else.

Instead of having rules and saying NO, then punishing the child for breaking said rules, parenting without force sets no rules to begin with. No rules = no punishments for breaking rules.

But no rules does not equal no limits or no boundaries. It just means there is continuous guidance in interacting with the environment. There is no need to snatch the kid from oncoming cars if you've been holding the kid the whole time. There is no need to punish the kid for hitting another kid if you've been paying enough attention to guide him out of that conflict.

However, just like governing without legislation, it is not always expedient. Let me refer to Thoreau's famous quotation:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

I'll just start with that.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"There is no need to snatch the kid from oncoming cars if you've been holding the kid the whole time."

Hello,

Isn't 'holding the kid the whole time' a use of force, and hence violence in the form of imposed restraint? What if the child does not desire to be held? At the moment he makes that determination, and you continue to hold the child, you are committing an act of violence against the child.

I theorize that some level of violence is required in parenting. To never impose upon a child's free will is an alien ideal to me, and not practicable in the real world. However, I do think we should endeavor constantly to minimize our use of violence and innovate less violent practices as often as we can.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:44 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Isn't 'holding the kid the whole time' a use of force, and hence violence in the form of imposed restraint? What if the child does not desire to be held? At the moment he makes that determination, and you continue to hold the child, you are committing an act of violence against the child.

Exactly, and we're going to end up with a definition for violence as a positive thing if we're not careful. My little nephew doesn't always want to hold my hand when he crosses the road, but I force him to. Or perhaps a child wants to play out late into the night - or a young teenage girl wants to walk home late at night by herself. Children are foolish, and so need this 'violence' forced upon them. Maybe there is a case for similar protecting violence by a government on its human citizens, who are inherently weak and foolish like children in some respects

Like seat belt laws, or restriction of unhealthy/toxic substances in foods.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:48 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I anticipate that at the end of the day, it will have to be conceded that some violence is good and necessary in society and even in parenting.

And that sounds just horrible.

I don't think any endeavor to completely eliminate violence is practicable. I do think a constant endeavor to minimize violence is wise.

The unanswered question, and one which shall undergo continuous scrutiny and refinement is:

"What is the absolute minimum violence that will allow us to function?"

That is the principle question of both government and parenting, in my opinion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Isn't 'holding the kid the whole time' a use of force, and hence violence in the form of imposed restraint?

No. You hold his hand with his consent.

If he doesn't want his hand to be held, you ask him what he wants to do. Maybe he doesn't want to cross the street. You talk to him about why. You come to an agreement.

If you do this kind of parenting from Day 1. If you invest a HUGE amount of time early on, the agreement is much more easily reached as the child ages. By the time the kid is a teenager, negotiation and disapproval is all you need to do.

I have a friend who bought plane tickets for her and her son to visit her family in Europe. She hadn't seen them in ages. Then 9/11 happened, and her 6 year old became very scared of airplanes. She tried talking to him. She tried everything. He would not consent to flying. She could have forced him or bribed him or whatever. She chose to respect his lack of readiness and lose the money spent on the tickets.

She's my hero.

Not every parent can or is willing to do that. I'm not judging them. But I think that kind of non-forceful parenting represents the ideal to me.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Children are foolish, and so need this 'violence' forced upon them. Maybe there is a case for similar protecting violence by a government on its human citizens, who are inherently weak and foolish like children in some respects

And therein lies the main difference between you and me, regarding government and parenting.

I don't think children, or people, are foolish at all.

I do not think they NEED this violence forced upon them.

I think violence is expedient. It allows you to cross the street much more quickly than without violence. That is why I love the Thoreau quotation.

Violence, ultimately, is about expedience.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

When Charlie shrugs off your hand and bolts, where is the opportunity for discussion?

And what if Charlie is doing something dangerous, and does not yet have the grasp of language?

What if Charlie has the grasp of language, wants to do something dangerous or illegal, and isn't interested in discussion?

If you are not prepared to concede that there are some incidents that require violent intervention (use of force without consent) then I must concede that your experience is alien to my own.

I find these incidents few and far between, but I have witnessed that they do exist in my reality.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
When Charlie shrugs off your hand and bolts, where is the opportunity for discussion?

If you pull him back from traffic for a second, I don't see it as forceful or violent in an of itself.

If Charlie cries and insists on going across the road without holding your hand, and you purposefully ignore his wishes and say, "Sorry Charlie, I am just going to physically force you to hold my hand against your will," then I see it as violent.

Please note I am not saying this violence is bad. I am saying, it is not my ideal.

You must understand, the ideal situation I describe works best (maybe even works ONLY) if the child is raised this way from babyhood.

Baby Charlie doesn't know what he wants very much, except when he is hungry, bored, dirty, or lonely. Being attentive to his every need helps him develop a bond of trust and respect. Babies are carried everywhere, so I don't regard physical manipulation of the baby as violence, even though it may be considered forceful.

Toddler Charlie, already ingrained with this bond of trust and respect, starts to explore the world. You kindly set limits for him by explaining how things work and why things are dangerous. "No, Charlie, we don't put fingers in sockets because it will hurt you. Let's play with this playdoh instead." No need to punish--just divert.

Kindergartener Charlie, still more ingrained with this bond of trust and respect, is fascinated with fire and wants to light lots of matches. You can give him a rule to never play with matches and punish him for setting a notebook on fire. Or you can light matches with him, explaining why he can only watch when you are lighting them [or why he can only light them when you are watching. ;)] And he would respect this parameter because he has had that long tradition of mutual agreement with you.

I can also put it this way. The longer a child has been raised non-violently, the more likely continued non-violence will work smoothly.

Quote:
If you are not prepared to concede that there are some incidents that require violent intervention (use of force without consent) then I must concede that your experience is alien to my own.

Please allow me to fine-tune that phrase and say I believe violent intervention is more like "use of force against one's will." It may be only a slight change in connotation, but I believe this language would make a distinction between grabbing a child out of traffic for a second and purposely HOLDING a child out of traffic against his will.

So, if I may refine my thoughts a bit, I should like to make a distinction between mere force and the idea of violence itself.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:08 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I can also put it this way. The longer a child has been raised non-violently, the more likely continued non-violence will work smoothly.

Interesting ideas CTS.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You hold his hand with his consent.

One problem: children are in no position to grant their consent. I find the fact that you don't know this fairly troubling.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

""use of force against one's will.""

Hello,

Even snatching a child from traffic, done with the utmost of best intentions, may be against the will of the child. His will might be different later, when knowledge of bloody consequences is understood, but at the moment of intervention you are exercising violence. Remember that "It's for your own good" and "you'll thank me later" does not change the reality of the moment.

I will agree with the premise to minimize violence, but I will not agree with attempts to re-label violence under special criteria.

Sometimes, violence will be the necessary lesser of two evils, not merely for expedience, but also for good health and survival. Recognizing this allows us to proceed to minimizing violence, rather than pretending it need not exist.

If a child picks up a rock and prepares to throw it through a plate glass window, it may likewise require swift and physical intervention to prevent damage to property that you can ill afford.

I think a creative mind can summon all kinds of scenarios when violence might become necessary.

There are even less extreme examples: The child may want to take a tour of the neighborhood at 2AM. You know that if you facilitate this desire, you will lose sleep sufficient to render you useless for the following days' activities.

What if you have to go to work, but your child refuses to be transported to school or leave the House? Sometimes consequences can extend to more than losing the price of an airline ticket. Consequences need not be immediate to be serious and threatening to the well-being of the family.

What then? Confine him? Force him? Lose sleep and possibly the means to support him?

You risk losing the income that will support your family if you are not able to do your job. Meanwhile, you cannot let the child go wandering or otherwise leave him without supervision, for fear of an ill end.

Try not to couch everything in ideal terms. "A conditioned child will be less likely to do these things" is nice and probably true, but you can't use that to discount alternative possibilities entirely. Remember, the essential nature of this discussion involves taking things to even the unlikeliest of extremes.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:32 PM

WISHIMAY

Do you have a child?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"One problem: children are in no position to grant their consent. I find the fact that you don't know this fairly troubling."

Hello,

Children are absolutely able to grant consent, and withhold consent. The fact that we may find it necessary to ignore their preferences does not indicate that they are without will.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:35 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello WishImay,

If this is directed at me, the answer is yes, I have a child. A son.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
One problem: children are in no position to grant their consent. I find the fact that you don't know this fairly troubling.

I think there are different definitions for "consent."

Of course, if someone told me "this child consented to have sex with me," I would say a child cannot give consent. Their utter dependence on the care-providing adult does not allow them to give the kind of consent that depends on equality of power.

But you know that is not the kind of "consent" I meant when speaking of holding Charlie's little hand to cross the street.

I find the fact that you accused me of not knowing the difference fairly disappointing.

Why are you picking on me, HK?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Do you have a child?

I have 3.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Of course, if someone told me "this child consented to have sex with me," I would say a child cannot give consent."

Hello,

I would say a child can GIVE consent for sex. But as an adult you are not allowed to ACCEPT that consent, or even SOLICIT it.

At this point I would probably have strong emotions that would interfere with my capacity for logic and reason. This breakdown would probably further result in some unfortunate violence that would negatively impact me and my family. I hope someone would be on hand to restrain me.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"One problem: children are in no position to grant their consent. I find the fact that you don't know this fairly troubling."

Hello,

Children are absolutely able to grant consent, and withhold consent. The fact that we may find it necessary to ignore their preferences does not indicate that they are without will.

Not remotely my point, Anthony.

The power differential between parent and child overwhelms the child's will, regardless of the parent's intentions. A parent who doesn't realize that her power far exceeds her child's will to oppose it is a very dangerous parent in my view.

Children are dependant on us for their very survival, and no one knows that better than the child himself; dependant on our judgement being better than the child's. How does he learn that if we never oppose his will? If he gets it into his head that our judgement does not exceed his in matters of survival, if we accent to his every challenge, scrupulously avoiding all opposition, then he will quickly learn to parent himself.

If you can't walk away from a deal, Anthony, you don't have a fair deal and children are in no position to walk away. They are not in a position to consent because they are not in a position to withhold consent where their survival is concerned. And, here's the kicker: parental happiness is a matter of survival to all children. Do you see? If you refuse to recognize that your will exceeds his in importance to him, he will never be at peace with his dependence on you and never learn what trust is--at least not from you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am perfectly prepared to accept that I must sometimes deny a child's will, and even that their will is likely to be influenced by mine.

But I will not take that to mean they have no will, no capacity for understanding, no preference, and no consent.

It is simply that their capacity for self-determination will grow with time, along with their independence.

A grain of sand is still sand.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But I will not take that to mean they have no will, no capacity for understanding, no preference, and no consent.

Anthony, I never said any such thing. I probably shouldn't have gotten involved with this discussion, much as the subject is of the greatest consern to me. I said that the child is in no position to grant consent, not that the child has no will or inclination or preference.

A deal you can't walk away from is no deal even if you think it is.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I will agree with the premise to minimize violence, but I will not agree with attempts to re-label violence under special criteria.

Fair enough. I can agree to call any amount of physical force used against one's will "violence."

I do feel it imperative to distinguish between different levels of violence. That is, there is a material difference between briefly holding someone back from an impulse and keeping someone back against his will. The two violences are not the same.

But okay yes, in the real world, violence is sometimes necessary, and not always evil. There, you made me say it.

Hell, I'm a Firefly fan. I cheered when Mal kicked that guy into the engine.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"A deal you can't walk away from is no deal even if you think it is."

Hello,

If your argument is to say that a child lacks the power of an equal negotiating and bargaining position, I agree. If your argument is that their judgment is affected by their opinion of what will please you, I agree.

But there is no useful leap to be made from those realities, other than that we should strive to appreciate their desires as often as possible, to level the playing field as much as possible, and to consider their consent as much as possible.

It is not possible to grant them the position of true equal, because their situation precludes equality. But it is possible to shape their environment and interactions with us so that we approach equal consideration as nearly as we can without causing harm.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But okay yes, in the real world, violence is sometimes necessary, and not always evil. There, you made me say it.

Hell, I'm a Firefly fan. I cheered when Mal kicked that guy into the engine."

Hello,

I cheered, too... though I ought to be ashamed of that.

I understand that there is a little psycho in each of us. I try not to feed him too much, but I do feed him a little. Just so he doesn't get up in arms and try to take over the asylum.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"A deal you can't walk away from is no deal even if you think it is."

Hello,

If your argument is to say that a child lacks the power of an equal negotiating and bargaining position, I agree. If your argument is that their judgment is affected by their opinion of what will please you, I agree.

But there is no useful leap to be made from those realities, other than that we should strive to appreciate their desires as often as possible, to level the playing field as much as possible, and to consider their consent as much as possible.

It is not possible to grant them the position of true equal, because their situation precludes equality. But it is possible to shape their environment and interactions with us so that we approach equal consideration as nearly as we can without causing harm.

I'm H. K. Cavalier, and I approve this message.

You say "there is no useful leap to be made from those realities, other than...etc." but I think that is an exceptionally useful leap to make. As often as possible, as much as possible. But there are times when it is not possible and I don't think there is any shame in that, and I don't think it wise to ignore these exceptions for the sake of a foolish consistency.

Good parenting, as I understand it, and as I have participated in it, is fundamentally an intuitive process. Any rule or absolute brought into the equation leads to precisely the kind of violation the op would seek to avoid. The conflation with snatching a child out of traffic and "violating" the child's will is maddeningly obtuse. The child's natural dependency allows the parent, no, DEMANDS that the parent overrule the child's will on a case by case basis. Not too much, not too little: the Goldilocks Principle. Of course it is healthy to give anyone you love as much freedom to choose as is safe and appropriate to the circumstances. Sometimes children need to be instructed as to what those circumstances are. Sometimes they lack sufficient information to make that judgement themselves. At one time or another the parent and child will find themselves in a battle of wills and if the parent cannot negotiate all three possible outcomes with a good grace and compassion, both for themselves and the child, the child and the relationship will suffer. That's all's I'm sayin', yo.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But there are times when it is not possible and I don't think there is any shame in that, and I don't think it wise to ignore these exceptions for the sake of a foolish consistency.

When Anthony, and I for that matter, insist on using the word "violence" for something that seems so not-violent, we are not doing it for shame. There is no shame. It is, as you say, for consistency.

It comes from the previous thread where the definition of violence was in much dispute. Several people argued that legislation was not always violent. They argue, if Bob pays his parking fines willingly, there is no violence involved.

If we are to advance in these arguments, we need to be consistent with the definition of violence, and stick to it even when it feels inconvenient.

Otherwise, if it were not for the sake of this argument, the way you say it would be just fine.

ETA: Just saw the word "ashamed" in Anthony's post re cheering for murder. I think that is a different shame than the shame of using physical force to restrain a child from traffic.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

My Father and My Philosophy - I
_____________________________

Hello,

As I sat reading another thread, specifically the one about violence, I found that I had firm convictions about the subject. THIS is violent, THIS is not. THIS is acceptable, THIS is not.

I was not approaching the topic as a person made from un-molded clay. I seemed to have firm and definitive answers to the questions being posed. My entire Libertarian mindset on such things seemed well considered and well constructed. However, I could not remember a time when I sat down and thought about violence and government and individual rights and worked things out for myself.

Moreover, my parenting beliefs did not seem to spring from any experiences I had while raising my son. When my son was very young, I made several decisions which upset my wife of the time and various members of my family. My refusal to lie to my son about things like Santa Claus was a source of regular friction. My tendency to couch things in phrases like, "I believe...," and "some people believe," was a practice that seemed to spring from nowhere. As was my tendency to ask, "What do you think?"

My ex-wife would regularly threaten to 'beat your ass' as a punishment for non-compliance, while I had never spanked my son. (Though I had confined him.) A glance from me was usually enough to get the job done. When more time was available, a long talk did the trick.

I should stress that I am not a perfect parent, nor even a particularly good parent. Whatever my principles may be, I often find myself falling short of them. But I do have principles, seemingly fully formed, that came from nowhere.

In the violence thread, I began to wonder how I had evolved to this point of view. I could not identify the process. I could remember many times in my life when I said to myself with certainty, "A-ha, this is correct!" But I could not remember many times in my adult life when I asked myself, "I wonder what the value of X vs Y is?"

When I realized the lack of critical development in my philosophy, I became dismayed. Clearly, I hadn't given things much thought at all. I must have read something or heard something somewhere and adopted it whole-cloth and without critical analysis. This was a terrible revelation!

Then I began to think a bit deeper, a bit further back. I thought upon my own childhood. I thought about my own parents. I began to realize that I had considered the issues of freedom and property and rights and violence before... but I had done it so long ago, and so gradually that I was not even aware of the process at the time.

I love my parents. Both of my parents love me very much. They both made mistakes. Neither lived up to their ideals. However, they both shaped me by exposure to their example. Things never explicitly stated might as well have been hours of classroom lecture. I learned a great deal through the environment they created.

My parents are both great people, but the lessons I took from them were very different. My father ended up teaching me my Philosophy. My mother ended up teaching me my Compassion.

In neither case do I believe that my parents understood the lessons they were teaching. For one thing, their approaches to parenting were wildly different. For another thing, they didn't seem to believe everything that they made a conscious effort to teach me.

This is evident in the fact that what they spoke by way of instruction was often different from what they demonstrated. Sometimes, their words and actions were direct opposites. However, despite the human tendency towards hypocrisy, actual behavior ended up being the constant star. I understood who they were and what they valued by what they did.

My own personality is a compromise between them, which is a realization that gives me no end of joy. At various points, long ago, I considered both of my teachers and made my own choices about what to take from each basket of goods. I am the product of my parents, but I am what I chose to take from each of them. More than a mere compromise between two positions, I am a long road of choices made one step at a time.

******

My mother used to hit me. She did it a lot. For a while there, the blows came so often that it became a routine.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
My own personality is a compromise between them, which is a realization that gives me no end of joy.

That is a beautiful story. I look forward to reading more. What a fantastic revelation to understand your roots.

I'm nowhere near the parent I want to be. I started out doing all the conventional things: time-outs, positive reinforcements, not rewarding bad choices, even light pats on the behind or on the hand when they were really young. When my daughter's tantrums escalated distressfully in time-outs, I started thinking even conventional methods caused too much pain. Given a choice, she would choose a spank over a time-out any day. So I started giving her a choice. From there, I have been punishing less and less. I didn't have good parents, so good parenting for me is sort of like groping in the dark.

Over the years, esp with the insights I gained from Frem and others, I've been moving more towards a "non-violent" parenting ideal. It is helpful to have a goal to which I can aspire. I am growing as a parent. I hope one day my kids will forgive my mistakes.

I just thought of something, as an aside.

Another example of "necessary violence," if you will, is dispute settlement (both with kids and with citizens). With three kids, going with one kid's will often means going against the will of another. I just pulled my 3 year old off a game to give his sibling a turn. He cried sorrowfully. I spent some time with him to calm him down. Made jokes. At that age, the magic words "fart, poop, pee" often do the trick. He's all happy now, watching his sibling take a turn.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

My Father and My Philosophy - II
_____________________________

My mother used to hit me. She did it a lot. For a while there, the blows came so often that it became a routine.

I guess that sort of thing was typical in Cuban society. I can only guess this, since I never lived in Cuba. For all I know, it was rare as radium. However, I think it is telling that both of my parents have stories about being severely punished or beaten as a child. With my Mom, I think she observed the beatings of her brothers and suffered mostly emotional abuse herself. My father was frequently struck with a belt about the legs while sitting in a chair. There is actually a series of funny stories about that belt. It seems strange that there could be funny stories about an instrument of corporal punishment, but life is like that. There are flashes of light even in the darkest places.

In brief, my father came to the conclusion very early on that getting hit by a belt was bad. He didn't enjoy it one bit. Moreover, the 'beating belt' was not a belt that was worn by anyone. It hung on a peg in the kitchen, a constant reminder of the price of disobedience. My father tried three times to rid himself of that implement of torture, somehow linking the object, and not his parents, to the pain. As adults we can say how foolish it is to think that ridding himself of the belt would rid himself of the beatings, but a child's scope of reason is frequently different than ours. Sometimes it is narrower, sometimes it is wider.

Anyhow, the first time he tried to rid himself of the belt, it was an especially ill-conceived attempt. He tossed it into a patch of tall grass behind the house, where it would presumably be lost forever amongst the obfuscating blades. This lasted until my grandfather cut the lawn. Then the belt returned to the peg.

The second time, he buried the belt in the ground. Unfortunately, my grandmother decided to use that patch of ground for a garden. The belt was dug up, and returned to the peg.

The last time, he climbed a tall tree in the yard and lashed the belt to a branch. This lasted until a bolt of lightning struck the tree, blasting the limb from the trunk. Once again, the belt returned to the peg.

Presumably, taking this last incident as divine intervention, my father stopped absconding with the belt. His tales of being beaten with the belt decline after this period, however, and I've often wondered if his protest of thievery was taken to heart by my grandparents. He was never punished for the belt incidents themselves, despite it being rather obvious that he was the culprit. This may be one of those ways in which actions form an unspoken language of understanding between people.

In any event, both of my parents were subjected to abuse for the purpose of behavioral modification. This, despite the fact that they grew up in different regions of the island. I take this to be a rather large and unlikely coincidence. I posit that either such punishment was the norm in Cuban culture at the time, or their common experiences somehow contributed to bringing them together.

None of this was on my mind as my mother struck me. These were not the calm, reasoned blows you might expect from someone who had rationally decided that corporal punishment was a suitable behavioral correction tool. They were impassioned, furious slapping blows, often about the face and shoulders, and always accompanied by shrill shouts about the impertinence of disobedience.

How could I know the history and mitigating circumstances of the act? How could I know that she was merely playing back a recording of something that had happened in her youth? How could I know about her badly balanced hormones and malfunctioning thyroid? How could I know about the tumors in her body that caused excessive chemical production, such that every emotion was amplified to its utmost limit? Neither of us understood these things. She only knew that she was furious and frustrated. I only knew that I was being assaulted. Understanding would not come for some time.

By contrast, while my father had a history of corporal punishment in his childhood, he had received little emotional abuse and he had no hormonal imbalances to cloud his thinking. He was as different from my mother as night and day. If, in the midst of my childhood, I had been told that my father was an alien, I doubt I'd have been surprised. If my mother was a maelstrom, then my father was a placid sea. Usually. There are only two times my father ever struck me outside of combat training. These incidents seem to exist only to prove that he was human after all...

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:25 AM

Fascinating, and excellent discussion - been unable to jump in due to local circumstances for a bit, and because to my somewhat astounded and happy surprise, there's not been too much to say.

For mine own, I too favor the absolute minimum of force, but the world isn't as cooperative as we'd like, and people are imperfect even at the best of times - plus I've dealt with many very very broken people in my time.

The most recent incident I am willing to discuss is actually a while ago, while visiting my sister.
Two of the nieces got into a squabble and there was pushing, but it was a very quick spat and over before I could intervene, and they broke it off and one went downstairs to her room while the other went to the kitchen, kind of a neutral corners thing, and I saw no need to involve myself other than a reminder to the younger about word being as much as weapon as a fist - her being much like me in so many respects, she decided to work off her bad mood by doing the dishes, so no complaints there...

Till the older one, with bruised ego, stormed back up to the steps and full-arm threw a bottled water at the younger - to me that was an unprovoked attack with intent to harm and unacceptable, that it missed by intention or design was irrelevant, and I took her to task for it, interposing myself between them so the younger couldn't retaliate without coming through me, nor could the elder press her attack - while I explained in sharp words that her actions were unacceptable and if she felt she'd been that wronged, there was me sitting right there to have taken it to, and her mother down the hall in her room, and it was our job to resolve such things if there was a need.

The eldest of course would have none of it, all too used to getting her way for reasons which'll come clear in a moment, and stormed out to go visit a friend - which her mother, having come down the hall, was going to physically prevent till I accidently-deliberately got in the way, that wouldn't have gone well at all - when someone walks away like that, they're doing so cause they're trying NOT to fight, because remaining would break their restraint and cause violence, we knew where she was going, it was the middle of the day and she was old enough to be safe in this surburban neighborhood, so any attempt to stop her right then and there would be more about my sisters ego than anything useful.

Having no other target for her ire, and not daring to turn it upon me since due to our own upbringing I had more than once played the role of father as well as older brother to her, she turned that ire on the younger, who was at the time backed into a corner near the sink, as a verbal altercation has a strong emotional impact on kids whether we intended to or not, and this was the first time she'd ever in her life heard me raise my voice or use that kind of tone on someone so she was a little shocked.

And herein lies one of the greater problems with my sisters "parenting" - that the youngest of the nieces is her "unfavorite", a middle child, and generally gets punished for things none of the others would, and recieves more of it - part of this is subconsciously because she resented me having to sub in for a "real" parent, despite having her best interests in mind at the time, since the youngest niece is so reminiscent of myself in thought and action it can be downright eerie, a kind of displaced aggression we've had words about before.

So she starts yelling at the youngest, using some seriously abusive words and language, stuff you shouldn't SAY to a kid, ever, especially a young girl, and before *I* can call her on it, the younger niece, taking courage from me being right there no doubt, calls her mother out on it, using damn near the exact phrases I was about to.

I had already taken one step towards them to break this up, when my sisters hand come up with full intention to slap and started to fall - and in a blink I was across that room, seized her wrist before that blow landed, and with a slight pivot, body checked my sister into the wall, quite on purpose as both a follow through and a taste of what she was about to so arbitrarily dish out for no reason but a bruised ego.
"Don't you DARE!" I shouted, a full voiced roar of a type I damn near never use, but no way in hell was I going to let something like THAT happen right in front of me.

My sister, quite pissed by now but both unwilling to make a physical issue of it with me, and even in such a situation trusting my judgement more than her own (despite that she resents it quite a bit) made her classic poutyface at me I remember so well and stormed off into her room.

I turn round and the youngest niece has an expression on her face which would be comic in any other situation, eyes wide, jaw hanging open, both little fists curled under her chin, obviously thinkin something on the order of "Holy Shit!"... and of all the things, starts trying to apologize to me for her involvement in that mess, but I cut her off and pointed out that her only "involvement" at all was getting into a push-n-shove with her sister and saying a few things she shouldn't, anything past that had little to even DO with her.

(Mind you, this was the first time in sixteen YEARS she'd seen me even raise my voice, so she was rather completely wigged out, especially having heard all the neighborhood rumors about what a monster I supposedly am.)

Knowing how these things work, and that I would be leaving again soon, I did apologize to her over it, cause I could be pretty certain my sister would find a way to retaliate against her for my own actions once I did leave, and I kinda felt bad about that since she gets such a hard time to begin with - to which her only response was "It's ok, cause that was SOOOo worth it..." - apparently no one else has had the nerve to call out my sister when she gets physical with them, something which grinds my own nerves more than a little given how little reason for it she often has.

So the youngest went back to doin the dishes and a little while later the oldest calls on the phone and asks if everyones still mad, which I assured her wasn't the case - I know my sister, by storming off she was as usual, leaving the mess in my hands to handle and she'd think no more of it unless someone brought it to her attention again deliberately - so the oldest comes back, and after rather reluctantly apologising to the youngest (for which I did not even have to prompt her) goes back down to her room to watch a DVD, and so the situation was as resolved as it was gonna get.

You'll note that other than verbal (over which all three of em got lectured by me about, privately and later) the only "violence" required to resolve the situation was versus the PARENT, not the children, yes ?

That's the primary cause of parent-child violence, is bad temper and ego issues, especially when the parent wants something done RIGHT NOW despite not having sufficient reason or being too angry to bother discussing the point, that whole shut-up-and-obey thing, which is contradictive to a childs NATURE - but not many parents really understand that, and my sister most certainly isn't one of em, because while her age qualifies her as such, sister or not, she isn't much of an "adult" sometimes, although she did admit that her own actions were also out of line.

See, when it gets sticky between a parent and child, SOMEONE has to be an adult about it, and it damn well should be the parent - keeping that in mind will get you lots of mileage out of holding your temper, really.

Anyhows, generally minimum-force-possible and why-is-this-so-important should be the watchwords of decent parenting.

The only other thing imma mention, cause I am running low on time here, is that I have of course dealt with kids violently acting out, and such like - times when words will not have an affect, you understand ?

So my primary tactic is to simply wrap my arms around them and hold them close - a child really can't do much harm to you in that position, and I kind of doubt most folk will ever have to deal with one so far gone they might bite you, cause that level of pyschological trauma is something one is unlikely to encounter by accident.

There's a couple reasons for this, some obvious, some not - primarily is reducing or removing the ability to harm you, others or themselves, but also that the physical contact in a non-violent context (although by your definitions here it may constitute as force) has a calming effect(1) because this is essentially the "hug of life" as it's been dubbed by some, and most of the time a child is acting out that drastically it's because they've lost control inside their mind and emotions, so you're physically functioning as a floating log to someone drowing, a physical, primitive sensation so visceral that even the most primal parts of the brain respond it to even if the cognitive functions are misfiring.

FYI, that'd also be my response to a very small child attempting to dart across the road, scoop them up into my arms and move away, a protective, rather than restrictive, action, accompanied by an explaination; "Whoa, you could get squished, little one, seriously!" - the importance of explaining your actions also cannot be overstated, especially since in doing so you must also explain it to yourself and justify it...
And if you can't - maybe you shouldn't take that action, eh ?

-Frem
(1) - This works even when it's not me, which we had to test out because for reasons inexplicable my physical touch has a calming effect on humans or animals way out of any logical proportion, and no one knows why.
My best guess is that it's because I don't have the emotional rebound effect which causes someone who intervenes while trying to resolve an emotional crisis to get sucked into it and affected themselves - not sure if I can explain that other than to liken it to how panic spreads through a crowd - I am unaffected by those things whatever, so they don't wind up with their own unstable emotions reflected back at them.
(like a feedback effect, maybe?)
Best I can guess; so far no one has been able to explain it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This works even when it's not me, which we had to test out because for reasons inexplicable my physical touch has a calming effect on humans or animals way out of any logical proportion, and no one knows why.

Funny you should bring this up.

At an early point (maybe not early enough cause she was my first), I realized that when distressed, my daughter preferred to be spanked than to get a time-out. This led to another realization. What she preferred was not quick spanking over privilege loss or time-outs, but physical connection rather than physical disconnection.

Now, when she throws tantrums or gets very distressed, I know all she needs is physical pressure. I give her a strong massage on her arms or hug her REAL tight. She also likes to be squished or wrapped up in a blanket like a human burrito. It can calm her down more quickly than anything else.

Here is a good article on handling distressed kids without punishments, with some biological explanations for what kids need.

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/tackling-distress-tantrums-with-brain.h
tml?spref=fb

It's a very cool website anyway.

For dads, there is this guy.

Congratulations. You just broke your child.
http://www.danoah.com/2010/09/you-just-broke-your-child.html

Not that you guys need to read this, but I enjoyed reading them and wanted to share.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:24 PM

Ok, you might laugh, but the original idea of the "hug of life" came from dealing with pets, not people - most specifically a ginornimous lop ear bunny which one teacher in that second chance school got as a class pet, in hopes of a longshot at reaching the silent and hostile in the back of her class.

See, her hope was that even if I had no empathy left for my own species, that if I had some for the bunny, it'd rub off on the humans associated with that pet - Ms. Chaffinch was a damn smart lady in that way, and one of the few educators I've ever respected because she made an honest attempt to understand how my broken gears worked, and simply by treating me as a person managed to wind up with a model student instead of an epic disaster.

In fact, when she transferred from the elementary school where I first met her to a middle school (still within that second chance system) to fill a slightly better paying position, they IMMEDIATELY put me back in her class cause she was the only one who could get me to *say* anything, which blew up their theory that I was autistic - it was just that I had nothing to say to THEM that wasn't "fighting words", and when I did open my mouth to say anythin else nobody was pleased with the result... my "You have NO RIGHT..." speech to the elementary school principal was as memorable for the fact that it was more than six words as much as the content, given that it came out of an absolute refusal to participate in the "Pledge of Alliegence", this was in 1978 mind you, and it didn't go over too well back then.

Anyhows, said bunny was as fond of me as I was of her and when distressed would come to me, and so I would pick her up into my lap and fold my jacket over her, which is very comforting to a bunny because it fufills their natural inclination to hide when upset - works on kitties pretty well too, cause it insulates them from the enivirons and stimuli that panicked em in the first place.

But what really convinced me was the day Doug completely lost it, for reasons I'll not specify.

See, all of us in that second chance school had *issues*, and almost exclusively physically violent ones, which only made sense much later when I discovered it was funded by part of the military who wanted at least semi-controllable bad people to do bad things... and Doug had something on the order of Aspergers, which given the environment of a school set up to be a crucible to boil down the meanest, nastiest folk possible, was getting worse instead of better - not that they bothered with any diagnosis beyond "strange but violent" anyway, you understand.

Needless to say I know as well as anyone could the signs of oncoming berserkerang, and the situation was fast approaching critical mass, so I gave Doug the bunny treatment - and it worked, so from then on it's been kind of a staple of my approach to helping people who are not dealing well with stress.

It also seemed to be the spark which ignited the idea that I might not be so horrible after all...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBooRadley
And led to upset people sitting at my table at lunch and spilling their traumas to me, which was more about them needing to vent than any of the extremely rare occasions when I might offer a few words of advice or encouragement - and maybe a little about the fact that anyone approaching my table without consent was gonna get hit with a chair, so there was that, too.

Far as "punishment" goes, I can be creative about it in some really devious ways, enough so that the nieces and nephews are very, very leery of giving me cause...

Mostly I believe in restorative justice - when the nephew scratched up beyond repair the youngest nieces copy of Final Fantasy X-2, he was then bound to replace it, and proceeded to "throw himself on the mercy of the court", as in go beg uncle to get her a new copy, which I agreed to do only if he would offer ten bucks worth of labor... so his skinny little butt wound up loading the groceries I picked up (swinging by Gamestop on the way for a used copy of FF-X2, of course) and the lugging them into the house, all by his little lonesome even if it did take eight trips, and putting them in their proper places with my direction, save for the places he could not reach - he had to earn that ten bucks, fair and square.

FYI, when the concept of work-for-hire comes up with me, I tend to be a little more equitable, since if they can do an adults work, they'll GET an adults pay for it - provided a comparable level of effort on their part, none of this three bucks for mowing the lawn when you'd pay an adult ten, that's a ripoff and an insult, if they can successfully mow the lawn just the same, they get PAID just the same.

I got the youngest niece with an old saw over a relatively minor curfew violation, too - wasn't that she was twenty minutes late, it was trying (and totally failing, lol!) to lie to me about it, only to be cut off midstream and busted, THEN told how she SHOULD have shystered her way out of it, mind you, I practically WROTE the playbook she's workin from, which means she can't get over on me and usually doesn't even try, and that halfass attempt was just insulting...

So I send her to her room to ponder her fate with glaring eyes, flared nostrils and audible seething, where she no doubt proceeded to immediately commune with pagan gods in hope of divine intervention before I got round to delivering the awful retribution which was no doubt coming, shaking with dread the whole while...

And then proceeded to do exactly freakin nothing about it for like, an hour or so - before going down there and informing her, with gleaming eyes and shyster smirk, that I simply used her own imagination to cause her to deliver her own punishment for trying to lie to me, to which her response was "You, YOU BASTARD!" and throwing her pillow at me, which only caused me to chuckle darkly and remind her that trying to lie to me was a very-bad-idea, and further attempts would be unwise.
(also worth a note is that she hate-hate-HATES being outsmarted, ever, by anyone)

This plays off in other directions too, like when the nephew didn't wanna do the dishes.

I asked him what he would rather be doing, and he wanted to play mortal kombat, which *I* happened to be doin, and why didn't *I* take a turn at doing the dishes since everyone else had to.
(cue shyster smile...)
So I tossed him the player two controller and told him IF he could beat me, THEN I would do the dishes.
This is a bit more of a 'thing' in our family since everyone from the youngest to the grandparents are pretty hardcore videogame types, so such a thing has a little more 'meaning' in context - that I even hinted he had a chance was a pretty good bit of ego stroke there, and I went a bit easy on him without being obvious about it, before throwing a corner-combo and stomping him flat.
Sure, he went and did the dishes, but he did so with a little bit of pride cause he could tell himself he came "thiissss close" to beating the old man, and to HIM, that was worth doin the dishes all by itself.
(Had he gotten spectacularly lucky, mind you, I WOULD have done the dishes.)

As for the eldest niece, well she's older and wiser, soon as that shyster smile comes up she suddenly finds it in her own best interests to cooperate, cause while I am as a rule quite fair and honest, thus playing nice is infinately preferable to whatever devious trickery is gonna happen if she don't - and her bane is being embarassed or made to look a fool in front of other people, and she's well aware I know it.

"You be back by eleven, you hear ?
I'll be back when I am back!
Which'll be by eleven.
Whatever!
(cue smile)
Oh all right, eleven, hmmph!"

You do things right from the beginning, you've no need for violence, generally speaking.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:25 PM

Bah, stupid double posts.

Here's a close to perfect shot of a similar bunny to our class pet, to a middle school kid who was pretty puny, she was Huuuuge!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 1:57 AM

Awwww Frem. What was the bunny's name? What a smart and decent teacher that was.

I wish my husband had had at least one decent teacher like that. His teachers had nothing but vile things to say, like "You're stupid and you'll never graduate from high school." Seriously, they put him in the "retard" room, with kids that drooled and stuff. It wasn't until college that he was told he had dyslexia. But if even one teacher had just paid a little attention, they could have discovered there was nothing wrong with his intelligence.

Needless to say, when our daughter was born, the first thing he said was, "She's not going to public school."

That is why I say, not all child abuse is violent.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:38 AM

Well, no one else could think of a good name so I took to calling her Fluffy, cause she kinda was.

Actually I had a couple decent teachers, Ms. Chaffinch - who was so firmly convinced there was a human being behind my misanthropy, Ms. Dorsey, who managed to trick me into revealing how smart I really was and from that moment on called me "Doctor" cause she was quite sure I'd wind up with a PHD, and Mr. Zoeller, a chem teacher who didn't mind me bogarting supplies and blowing stuff up cause that same fascination translated to a 94% average in his class.

Of course, there's the other side too, like Pritchard, who if he's even still kickin, prolly cusses my very name to this day - I bounced in and out of the second chance schools, and wound up in the end kicked out of or outright expelled from almost every school in three counties, and there's a certain family-name history of that kinda behavior before even that... so when the school I pulled the pocket revolt on realized who the youngest neice was related to, it was a genuine brick-shitter moment for em, no doubt.

My response to the type of abuse you speak of was to retaliate with my own spin on it, by bugging the teachers lounge and otherwise mentally screwing with them - once I got the weightlifters club to pick up a nasty teachers car and put it somewhere "impossible", or the teacher who came back from her coffee break only to realize all the notes she wrote for us to copy were now upsidedown...
I hated Ms. Hunter - her idea of "teaching" english was to have us copy five blackboards worth of notes by hand, and then read a story from a weekly reader and answer a 10 question ditto - while she spent 90% of her time kickin back in the teachers lounge - I also put the blacksnake in her desk, just for traditions sake.
Oh yes, and re-wiring the school intercom to a clock radio hidden in the ceiling set to the local heavy metal station, and shorting it in the ON position - that took em HOURS to sort out...
Replacing random reels of the history/social studies propaganda vids with porn, and you've no idea how hard it was to GET porn on reel to reel back then cause VHS was up and coming, but then I had porn for viewmaster once I figured out how to make and/or modify viewmaster wheels.

Believe me, I got very little moral high ground concerning all that cause I was as pyschologically abusive to them as they were to me, and since my mother was on *my* side, unless they had actual proof, there was damn little they could do about it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:04 AM

Frem,

You sound like a child character from a Roald Dahl book.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 1:48 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Interesting discussion.

Restraining a child when they are about to hurt themselves..ie running into traffic - I don't see it as violence. The intent in violence is to do harm, and in this case it is to prevent harm.

We had an interesting speaker at work recently who talked about the definition of abuse, he put a whole load of statements up on the screen and asked us to decided which ones were abuse. One of them was restraining a child in the above circumstances. I guess the upshot of his talk was that abuse was hard to define. Whereas one person might define smacking a child as abuse, another may not. Defintions depended to change depending on culture and background and ones own experience, I guess.

In my opinion, it's one of those times where you don't reason with a child. You stop them, restrain them if necessary and then explain the the rules of behaviour. While I'm all for involvement of children in rule setting, there are some that you cannot compromise on. Playing or running into traffic is one of them. Harming someone else or breaking things is another.

A tired toddler is beyond reason. I have experienced that myself.

We've never believed in using smacking or any other type of physical punishment with our son, but it doesn't mean I haven't done bad parenting from time to time just the same. My husband and I disagreed on corporal punishment before he was born (he approved, I didn't) But once he held our son, he said then that he could never do it. Our son is lucky to have a gentle role model for a father. I was just surprised that he seemed to come out with his will firmly intact. He challenged me from day one, as if to say..."I'm here, and my own person. I'm not part of you at all."

Time out, getting angry, convoluted punishments like loss of priveledges...none of these have worked very well. Actually what he likes best is to get our approval and have us be proud of him. At ten, he is excellent at negotiating with us. He's taught me a hell of a lot more about parenting than I'll ever be able to teach him.

Parenting is damned hard when you are tired and stressed. It's when I revert back to being the type of parent I never thought I could be. Luckily, it's usually short lived and I have learned to say sorry for when I've done it really badly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The intent in violence is to do harm, and in this case it is to prevent harm.

I think violence has to be defined independently of intent. Intent is terribly hard to pin down and extremely subjective. That would, in turn, define violence as being in the eye of the beholder.

A lot of violence has been done under the umbrella of "intent to prevent harm." Involuntary hospitalization and drugging comes to mind as an example.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 4:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The intent in violence is to do harm, and in this case it is to prevent harm.
I think violence has to be defined independently of intent. Intent is terribly hard to pin down and extremely subjective. That would, in turn, define violence as being in the eye of the beholder.

A lot of violence has been done under the umbrella of "intent to prevent harm." Involuntary hospitalization and drugging comes to mind as an example.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Hello,

Absolutely. Violence is independent from intent. The fact that violence may be beneficial under limited criteria is immaterial to its essential definition. Keeping it independent is not only factually accurate, but also important morally. It prevents a casual attitude.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 6:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Interesting topic. I think back to my own childhood, my husband's, and to our parenting style.

I was a sensitive child. Other people's happiness was always important to me. I remember listening to my dad's stories of being a gang boss in a Siberian labor camp and feeling inadequate when I considered the moral choices that faced him (who got food, who got boots?). I recall thinking at the age of six that he sometimes loved us ("his family") with the passion of a nearly-drowned man clinging to a life raft: We gave him purpose after nearly a decade of life-and-death tumult.

My dad was an old school authority that he learned as a farmer in 1920s Poland. He rarely hit us and almost never yelled, and yet caused a fair bit of fear when he got angry. In fact, he only really hit us once when we were six, with a belt, which left bruises on our legs. I saw him do that to one of our dogs, and his explanation was this: At a certain age, you have to hit your dog (child) hard enough so they will know and remember who is boss. Although I was angry and resentful at him for not giving us what we wanted, I felt loved and remember him fondly.

Then there was my mom. She never hit us, but she felt sorry for herself and began drinking. She used harsh, spiteful, damaging words, and as her drinking got worse and worse there was always the unspoken threat that we had to keep her happy or she might do something foolish. At a point I realized that I could NEVER make her happy, and I shed myself of her, realizing that she could suicide (which she attempted unsuccessfully later, hit bottom and sobered up).

My husband grew up in a blatantly abusive household. His dad played head-games morning, noon, and night; and if you didn't guess which way to jump you were hit (or your mom or brother were hit). In fact, my FIL grew up in a horror-show household (this was back in Hungary) and was imprisoned and abused by the Nazis.

The abuse my FIL dished out was so bad that at one point my MIL suffered what was then called a "nervous breakdown": She went catatonic and had to be treated with ECT. My husband is extremely smart; he understands that his upbringing left him with PTSD (He also went through a war when he was 10) and yet he feels that the abuse he suffered made him more than what he would have been otherwise. He is a firm believer that fear is a good motivator.

Then there is our daughter. She is terribly brain-damaged. She does some things spectacularly, and yet many of the really important right-brain basics elude her. She is extremely uncomfortable in a fluid world. She desires rules and consistency, and yet she is oppositional and seeks novelty! She doesn't respond appropriately to emergencies, and sometimes winds up in situations (especially online) that she doesn't know how to deal with. Long explanations sound like BLAH-BLAH-BLAH to her, so talking to her is out of the question. Giving her choices is difficult, because she has an extremely hard time making up her mind. Getting her to do her chores, brush her teeth, clean out her room (she is a hoarder) is a never-ending struggle.

My husband and I have very different viewpoints on how to deal with her. He believes in fear. Unfortunately, he's a little quixotic: his rules tend to be flexible and his response unpredictable. I don't believe in fear. OTOH, I find myself dealing wounding words at times, trying to make our DD feel a little badly about her judgment (which really is terrible) so that she will just do what she needs to do for a change.

Now that I hear myself dealing these wounding words, I'm trying to stop. Maybe a quick, sharp punishment is better, if it's ganged with consistent rules. I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out how to help her.

ETA: Having read Magons' Daughter, I realize that our DD does seek genuine approval. Not the fake "GOOD JOB!" that teachers hand out like candy, but my genuine surprised laugh when she says something insightful, or my smile of delight when she's finished building her computer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 7:37 AM

Never underestimate the importance of an explaination or apology to a child - TRUST me on this, they can hold subconscious grudges *forever*, even if they do love you, and those pile up and erode thier trust in your till there's just none left, and respect soon follows.

Much as I loved my mother, she had more than a few things to answer for which she never did, and while a childs forgiveness is legion, it is also finite.

As to the latter, Siggy - one of the things we use in dealing with the damaged, especially those within the Autism spectrum(1) is symbolic ritualism, which appeals to their desire for order and stability by installing certain portions of life as a set-piece event which is done exactly the same, every single time, but building a core of these, it gives them a bedrock from which to explore, you see ?

One of my guards has a very, very ritualistic gearing-up process, which takes him slightly longer, but left to it he does quite well - to interrupt him or impinge on it will leave him skittish and uneasy throughout the entire work shift, which is kind of the same thing - I dunno if I can explain it so well, but I think you of all people understand the concept, yes ?

So borrowing a few concepts from religious-type ritual can actually have a very positive effect, especially in combination with a mantra, song or poem...

(1) We've picked up an unlikely ally regarding Autism and medical coverage, primarily due to his own daughter being Autistic, cause once you bring it home to a politician and THEY find themselves on the sharp end, they tend to be a little more bendable to other folk with the same problem.
http://www.freep.com/article/20101128/NEWS06/11280504/Next-lieutenant-
governor-makes-appeal-for-mandatory-autism-coverage

I figure you could use some good news to offset all that holiday stress, so there you are.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 7:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks for that, Frem! I used to do that with our DD when she was young. I guess as she got older I expected more flexibility, but I see that it worked and I will do it again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 10:46 AM

No problem, also worth a mention is that self-soothing behaviors can be additionally adapted *into* the ritual nature of it, rocking can become scrubbing, for example, and the lyric/mantra/rhyme/litany thing as well - not only does this allow the soothing behaviors without the usual stigmata and pressure to cease - which is counterproductive anyway, you can't *stop* a reflex, and just trying winds up doing more harm than good, only way around that is to channel it into another direction - it allows them to see a tangible, physical benefit to their own actions, clean floor, clean dishes, etc...

And with a little positive reinforcement, they can lose a lot of the ever so frustrating guilt-factor of being not-normal in a society that values conformity above humanity - cause Autism spectrum kids do NOT handle frustration real well, so reducing it in every way possible helps just that much.

Strangely, I actually wanted to post something I just saw entirely relevant to this discussion, in a most unlikely place - once the rampaging hordes of Black Friday cleared out and my work shift was over (I was hired Ronin to chase off lurking predators) I went in to pick over the leavings like a hovering vulture, and managed to bag the other two seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender on the cheap, which I've been watching on my day off, you see...

And there's a spot at the end of Episode 11: The Desert where Aang, The Avatar, starts to have an "episode" in rage, fury and frustration, entering the Avatar State (which looks a hell of a lot like Berserkerang to me!) and Katara does *EXACTLY* what I was describing as "The Hug of Life" in order to keep him from going completely gonzo on the Sandbenders.

I just found that a little weird, come to find out there's even a related trope to it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CooldownHug

Of course, Wendy has her own version of this since touching me is really inadvisable when my fuze gets lit.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CareBearStare
Seriously, it's like she's got a WEAPONIZED version of that, this soul crushing, will destroying, puppydog eyes thing which just melts your brain and makes you want to do whatever she's asking - it's *creepy*!

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 11:35 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The intent in violence is to do harm, and in this case it is to prevent harm.
I think violence has to be defined independently of intent. Intent is terribly hard to pin down and extremely subjective. That would, in turn, define violence as being in the eye of the beholder.

A lot of violence has been done under the umbrella of "intent to prevent harm." Involuntary hospitalization and drugging comes to mind as an example.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

I think that at some levels violence is in the eye of the behoder , at least at the edges of the spectrum that you appear to be trying to define as 'violence'.

Touch, along with a whole lot of other human interactions is a complex issue. At some level, holding someone's arm is just that, but somewhere along the line it may become restraint and/or a violent act. That doesn't mean that holding someone's arm is violent, just that there is a spectrum. Sex is the same, the same act of penetration can be loving, an enjoyable physical act or rape. Doesn't mean that all sex is rape, if you see my meaning.

I think there is a real danger of reductionism around these terms if they are too all encompassing. If someone restraining a child from running onto a road is considered to be committing an act of violence, it diminishes the acts of violence that contain malevolence and end up with people being hurt.

I understand your point about the involuntary drugging, but as I said, I think a lot of our defintions are culturally based. What is considered acceptable in one era, is considered abusive in another.

signy - your post reminds me that hitting and corporal punishment is not the only way to damage a child. Sometimes I think that parents emotional manipulation and unhappy behaviours is far worse than a smack on the bum - not that I approve of that either, but there are a whole host of ways to do poor parenting. But we are all of us human, and results of our own parents parenting, and their parents parenting et al.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 11:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps you prefer the term 'force' to violence? The end result is the same. You are exercising your will to override that of another. You are making someone do what you want without asking their opinion or permission.

It's the essential difference between sex and rape.

I truly believe violence is necessary in life, but I think it should generally be the final recourse of a person who has utterly run out of alternative ideas.

If a child is running into traffic, I suspect the first and final recourse may be the same. This is probably the case in several aspects of child-rearing. However, I think it is a good practice to wonder about it, and doubt it whenever possible. It is also a good practice never to label it away, in my opinion.

Hence you are always in the position of trying to justify the violence, and never in the position of pretending it didn't exist.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 12:22 PM

DREAMTROVE

Speaking the Avatar state (Don't read if you haven't seen the whole thing)

Select to view spoiler:

Have you ever noticed that the Avatar state is a liability? Esp. in season three?

Also, has anyone noticed that the villains are more apt to apply eastern philosophy to solve their problems than the heroes?

This was so much of a problem for the writers that they had to contrive a situation to disable their villains because they couldn't figure out how the heroes could win.

Re: Black Friday, it's been madness here. I ache all over. I'm thinking about retiring destitute. Maybe I'll pull a CTS and become wealthy by comparison somewhere in the third world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 1:10 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Perhaps you prefer the term 'force' to violence? The end result is the same. You are exercising your will to override that of another. You are making someone do what you want without asking their opinion or permission.

It's the essential difference between sex and rape.

I truly believe violence is necessary in life, but I think it should generally be the final recourse of a person who has utterly run out of alternative ideas.

If a child is running into traffic, I suspect the first and final recourse may be the same. This is probably the case in several aspects of child-rearing. However, I think it is a good practice to wonder about it, and doubt it whenever possible. It is also a good practice never to label it away, in my opinion.

Hence you are always in the position of trying to justify the violence, and never in the position of pretending it didn't exist.

--Anthony

You and I appear to disagree with the term 'violence', I don't see it as all encompassing as you do. I have, as I stated earlier, problems with it being defined too broadly because of the diminishing affect that it has upon people who are suffering from the affects of what I would consider violence. The laws have changed here so that family violence is a broader term, and while I applaud it on one level, I see some of the drawbacks at another. It's become very easy to get an intervention order (I think you call them restraining order) to the point where courts and police don't take them very seriously. It means that breaking an order is less likely to be treated seriously, and so when people need protection from the serious harm causing, frightening violence of another, they have less recourse through the law.

I see it on a spectrum, and subject to cultural changes in meaning.

One of the questions asked in the seminar I referred to earlier was whether a baby biting its breastfeeding mother could be considered abuse. Only one person said 'yes'.

Re the issue of consent, also a difficult one. A new born baby cannot grant consent or make decisons about itself. Somewhere between birth and adulthood - considered to be 18 here, even though the brain hasn't fully developed until 25 or so, - decision making is gradually handed over to the developing person. How soon and how much is dependant on the individual, but I would argue that small children are dependant upon adults making decisions for their well being, and do better if adults make those decisions on their behalf.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 1:35 PM

Well, on that.
(*Spoilered for them that ain't seen it*)

Select to view spoiler:

All power of that nature comes with a price - did you expect any different, especially with a series with such eastern leanings ?

And nah, the contrivance was to avoid what *I* considered the simplest, most effective way to handle the problem, which involved makin a couple people DEAD, Azula and Ozai primary among them - seriously, you do NOT let a nutter like Azula live, she's too goddamn dangerous, all the more so cause she's flakin bonkers.

Of course, that wasn't the message they wanted to send the audience, it never is - cause you do that, they look at the folk who've built and handed them a shit sandwich for a future, and start getting... ideas.

You wanna talk contrivance and mindbending, the shit they did with the Cartoon Dungeons and Dragons was inexcusable...
http://www.povonline.com/cols/COL145.htm

I dunno if it even exists any more, and if it does, it's been heavily edited no doubt - but at one point Eric comes up with the concept of "Why not just KILL Venger and be done with it?", which damn near worked, save for the inevitable deus ex machina, of course - if that episode is on the DVD release at all, it's in nowhere near the form it originally aired, I assure you.

And despite endless chain-of-coincidences-and-contrivances and a double tablespoon of deus ex machina to MAKE him wrong... in the very essence of things, Eric was *right* most of the time.

Avatar: The Last Airbender handles this much better in the character of Sokka, who *is* right often enough to listen to, but not always right either - kinda like it works in real life.

So far I am up to Season two, Episode 13: The Drill - that I have watched all the way through, and I have to say I feel a tremendous kinship with Zuko, of all people, I understand him cause at that age I was a LOT like that, only even more rejecting of other people than he is...

And I did find the spaghetti western takeoff episode Zuko Alone quite gratifying - this is a well done series, and the plot advances at a pretty swift pace, but then unlike most western animation, they're not draggin it out as naught more than a venue to sell toys and merch with either.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 1:55 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is no need to snatch the kid from oncoming cars if you've been holding the kid the whole time. There is no need to punish the kid for hitting another kid if you've been paying enough attention to guide him out of that conflict.

What an effective way to raise a coddled child who's never had to make choices or resolve conflicts on their own.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 3:28 PM